[Homestead] Politicians vesus voters
Akka Homestead
akkabhomestead at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 2 16:20:32 EDT 2008
Gene GeRue wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Akka Homestead wrote:
>> I agree that those who voted for the [bailout] bill are going to be
>> chastized come re-election time.
>
> Probably not. Of those who vote, most vote for incumbents.
I am hopeful that this latest round of politics has convinced people otherwise.
> Any political campaigner needs a huge amount of money to run a
> successful campaign, the higher the office, the larger the sum. Most
> people either can't afford to donate or are insufficiently motivated
> to do so. The percentage of Americans who vote or not vote is evidence
> of the level of interest versus apathy.
This, IMO, is a 20th century view. In an age where a videos of menthos and coke can go viral with millions of hits, where everyone carries their own personal internet on their cell, there is really no need for a candidate to spend millions anymore. People go to the bathroom or Tivo out commercials anyway. Candidates need creativity.
>
>> Either reason is damning, I think. We need leadership. We need
>> someone who is not afraid to go against the flow, to be unpopular
>> for the sake of the country.
>
> Such a person would likely last one term; the only chance for a second
> term is if they had large personal resources and employed very
> sophisticated (expensive) campaign managers.
So, who cares about a second term...aren't we for voting out the incumbent? That should apply to everyone, not just some. Four years from now, I expect you to still have your "vote out the incumbent" tag line. If not, then the idea loses its credibility. The whole point is there needs to be change...change means voting out the incumbent.
They need both huge
> personal money and driving ambition to change the country. The Ross
> Perot story is instructive.
Again, that was before the internet became ubiquitious.
>
> In addition to sophisticated campaigns that persuade those susceptible
> to clever manipulation and lies because of modest intellectual
> capacity or naivete or--pick your own reason--earmarks are a way that
> politicians get voters to vote for them. Such action is blatant, and
> effective, pandering.
Of course. You are exactly right there. I think, though, that this might be unnecessary if one is truly representing their constituency. In that case, there would be no need to placate the population or buy votes.
>
> Please vote against the incumbents.
>
How about Politicians vs. Pundits?
I've been thinking...who thinks Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck would be good running mates for Pres and VP?
I think we could do worse.
Akka
More information about the Homestead
mailing list